State v. Bey
17 P.3d 322, 270 Kan. 544, 9 A.L.R. 6th 807 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant seeking to withdraw a nolo contendere plea before sentencing for 'good cause' must demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion, considering factors such as competent counsel, whether the defendant was misled or coerced, and if the plea was fairly and understandingly made. For 'package deal' pleas involving third parties, courts in future cases must be fully informed of the terms and conduct further inquiry into voluntariness.
Facts:
- On March 24, 1999, Victor Conger was killed by a gunshot to the head and his body was found in a Pittsburg intersection.
- Ahmad Bey and his brother, Yusif Bey, were involved in the robbery of Victor Conger.
- During the robbery, Yusif Bey shot and killed Victor Conger, and Ahmad Bey encouraged and enticed his brother to commit the killing.
- Extensive plea negotiations occurred over 2-3 weeks between the State, Ahmad Bey's counsel, and Yusif Bey's counsel.
- The prosecution communicated that any plea agreement would need to resolve both brothers' cases and be concluded before the Kansas Attorney General took over the prosecution.
- A plea agreement was reached where Ahmad Bey would plead nolo contendere to aiding and abetting intentional second-degree murder, and Yusif Bey would plead to first-degree felony murder, resulting in less severe potential sentences than the original charges.
- During the plea hearing, Ahmad Bey affirmed his understanding that not all law enforcement reports or evidence testing were complete but still wished to plead no contest.
- The night before Ahmad Bey entered his plea, his defense counsel received a Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) report containing statements from Taj Young, a jail mate of Yusif Bey, indicating Yusif confessed to the shooting and said Ahmad 'didn't do anything'.
Procedural Posture:
- Ahmad Bey and his brother, Yusif Bey, were each initially charged with premeditated first-degree murder in connection with the slaying of Victor Conger.
- The State filed an amended information charging Ahmad Bey with aiding and abetting intentional second-degree murder.
- Ahmad Bey waived his preliminary examination.
- Ahmad Bey entered a nolo contendere plea to the amended charge in district court.
- Prior to sentencing, Ahmad Bey filed a motion in district court to withdraw his nolo contendere plea.
- The district court denied Ahmad Bey's motion to withdraw his plea.
- Ahmad Bey appealed the district court's denial of his motion to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion in denying a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea when the defendant alleges an insufficient factual basis, coercion due to a 'package deal' plea agreement not explicitly disclosed to the court, and newly discovered evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - McFarland, C.J.
No, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw a nolo contendere plea where the record demonstrates a sufficient factual basis, the defendant's voluntariness despite a 'package deal' not disclosed to the court at the time of the plea, and newly received evidence that does not exonerate the defendant. The court found a sufficient factual basis for Ahmad Bey's plea, noting the amended information was read twice, the State recited facts (defendant present, participated in robbery, encouraged brother to shoot), and defense counsel conceded the sufficiency of these facts to likely lead to conviction. The defendant's written plea agreement also stated he understood the charges and 'aided and abetted' the killing. Regarding the 'package deal,' the court acknowledged the potential for coercion in such agreements, citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes and U.S. v. Wright, but determined that in this specific case, the extensive questioning of Ahmad Bey during the plea hearing and his repeated affirmations of voluntariness indicated no actual coercion, characterizing his change of mind as 'buyer's remorse.' However, for future cases, the court established a new rule requiring the State to fully disclose the terms of any 'package deal' to the court, which must then conduct further inquiries into the voluntariness of the plea. Finally, the court concluded that the KBI report, received before the plea, did not constitute newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant withdrawal, as it did little to exonerate Ahmad Bey, and his brother's knowledge of the crime scene was already known to him. This decision aligns with the principles of State v. Walton.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the standard for withdrawing a plea while simultaneously establishing new procedural requirements for 'package deal' plea agreements in Kansas. While affirming the high bar for demonstrating an abuse of discretion in denying plea withdrawals—especially when the defendant has affirmed voluntariness—the court recognized the inherent coercive potential of contingent plea bargains involving family members. The new rule, requiring explicit disclosure and specialized inquiry by the trial court in future 'package deal' cases, aims to prevent future claims of involuntary pleas and ensure judicial oversight of potentially coercive plea negotiation tactics. This will likely lead to more transparent plea proceedings and stronger records for appellate review in such cases, reducing the likelihood of 'buyer's remorse' challenges prevailing on appeal.
